The states are both big and similarly diverse enough economically and socially to have disparate quality education and outcomes for different groups. Just instinctively I assume certain suburban pockets of the Midwest, upstate New York or suburban northeast and pretty much all of New England would have the best K-12 education in the country. The top tier of California's private schools and public and private universities is bigger and better than Texas's and are probably second or third again with New England and New York. Texas had sufficient enough agricultural and mineral wealth to generate middle-class jobs for their large population without a massive post-secondary investment in education. The age-old rivalry between Austin against Houston and Dallas also complicated educational investment in those large population centers versus Austin and smaller but perhaps more regionally central cities. California was similar to Texas but perhaps due to the distance from the East coast felt the need to develop and then ultimately overtake the latter's media, film and finance sectors which then indirectly created demand and attracted talent for technical innovation and all the math, science and engineering education investment that comes with it. California invested early in education the same way the NY Tri-State area invested transport infrastructure, forced out of immediate necessity to think and plan 50 years into the future. I think Texas mirrors California's development about 40 years later beginning with Enron in the early '90s and massive diversification into power marketing and localizing software and consulting solutions for the energy industry.
Nothing trumps having to study Texas History in the seventh grade before getting to U.S. History in the eighth. Lololololololol.... This was over 20 years ago, so things may have changed for the better, I hope.
Yes really. I never mentioned higher education. California is vastly superior to Texas in that regard. I went to a UC. I know exactly what you mean. Even still, the entire time I noted my peers were quite a bit less prepared than I was before entering college. It didn't matter whether they were from San Diego, Irvine, Riverside, Laguna Niguel, Torrance, Compton, Long Beach, San Francisco, Alameda, etc... Even with those diverse areas, quite often, there was a common denominator. Aside from a few who went to private schools, when we would talk about high school education I always felt as if I knew way more coming into college than they did. Surprisingly, I always thought Texas' public education was whatever. But after spending time in California, I found out that my high school education was actually a blessing. In retrospect, the breadth of the topics I studied in high school was definitely up to par. California's a great place to get a college education though.
This is why I started a thread before the election to remind people about how important the SBOE races were. I think the argument was that mosaic law was the basis of English common law, which was the basis of American law. Seems pretty sketchy to me. The stuff they have in common are pretty basic things that are universal -- don't murder people, don't steal, etc. And the things that aren't basic, we don't do. According to this random website, both Texas and California are middle-of-the-pack on outcomes: http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/. To your credit, they do have Texas higher than California. Even so, I think your experience is merely anecdotal.
The good thing is that the Board weakened itself accidentally a few years ago. Texas is powerful because the state buys textbooks for every school (so there's a single payer for books here in Texas) but the state would only pay for books that made its list. That's why the Texas Board's recommendations have historically been so powerful. Because they purchase every book in the state and mandated that a book had to be on the list to be purchased, it made the state extremely powerful. Other states bought the same books that Texas mandated to create economies of scale. Its just cheaper that way. However, in 2011, the Board changed the rules and allowed school districts to order books that aren't on the list (and the state will still pay for them). Consequently the single payer impact of the book list, while significant, isn't the game changer that it used to be. School districts now have control over what books they want to put in the classroom and aren't tied to the book list anymore. So while this is really really stupid, you can still lobby your local school district to not buy terrible books. It used to be that school districts had no choice in the matter. That's not true anymore. E Bottom line, elect competent people to your local school boards and you'll avoid this issue.
as a citizen of the state of texas im disturbed your in the book industry where your liberal agenda can be crammed down the throats of kids who dont know better.
Wait, I thought Moses cracked the liberty bell, which gave Jesus the right to sign the constitution and take the land from the Indians, right?
Why is Moses or religions being discussed in the classroom? This is going to cause a lot of problems.